Why are the mid years the nadir of the hockey stick price curve?

[sugarwood]

The 911 market has a curious anomaly that I seek to understand.
What is the deal with the mid years? Why do they buck the price trends?

First here what I think is true:

Long hoods are late 60s-1972 and command 6-figure prices. They are lighter and have a shorter wheel base. I assume they are the most rare due to rust issues.

'74-'77 are called “mid years”, and appear to have the lowest prices. Is this related to detuned 1974 emissions, similar to Detroit and shift from Muscle to Malaise?

‘78-83 is the SC 911.
‘84-‘89 is the Carrera 911.

Each subsequent generation gets a little bit heavier, but more mechanically stout (more reliable EFI vs. MFI, etc)
The newer the 911, the more reliable its reputation. Fully galvanized shell by 1976 or so.

So, you can see the hockey stick forming. It's not just "older = most money", because while the oldest cars have the highest prices, the mid years have the lowest prices, and prices gradually climb from the SC to Carrera to 964

[dougcl]

Bruce Anderson did it.

[aschen]

Impact bumper with out the rust resilience or engine toughness of the SC

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Thermal reactors, pulled head studs, impact bumpers, and a reputation (undeserved or otherwise) for low reliability.

Porsche's Deadly Sin #4: Porsche 911S 2.7 - The Truth About Cars

[MRM]

The 74-77 "midyear" model with the 2.7 engine have always been the poor redheaded stepchild of the 911 lineup. The 2.7 engine always had a bad reputation because of pulled headstuds. here's an article that explains it. Not all Porsche 911s are Universally Loved - @FlatSixes - the blog about Porsche

For many years the advice was to never buy a midyear with a 2.7 engine. Eventually people realized that any car with headstud issues was old enough to have been fixed, and if it was this old and didn't have pulled headstuds, it wasn't going to develop the problem.

Still, the midyear cars live in the shadow of their pre-impact/pre-emissions older brother, the glorious 2.4s, the pinnacle of which is the 1973 2.4S. They were slower, less beautiful and more problematic. The SC saved the 911 and the Carrera was a shot in the arm when the SC was getting a little long in the tooth. Both models we very reliable, except for an early valve wear issue that no one cares about any more. The SCs and Carreras are now valued as the final evolution of the original design.

Some people have pointed out that the mid-year cars have gotten a bad rap since the engine is basically the same as in a million dollar 2.7 RS and can be hopped up to about the same performance with relatively little effort. But the mid year stigma lives on.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

God made mid-years for backdate projects in preparation for the bubble. Get as many as you can while supplies last.

[intakexhaust]

Disregarding the talk of mechanicals, body integrity, all the early cars are comparatively very low production. Then take in attrition. I don't miss any of my long hoods but surely would have liked to reap the prices of today. Would've been impossible for me though. Mine disintegrated years ago ...lol.

Good on those hearty folks doing whatever it takes to make any of them , mid-year included roll on.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by MRM

The 74-77 "midyear" model with the 2.7 engine have always been the poor redheaded stepchild of the 911 lineup. The 2.7 engine always had a bad reputation because of pulled headstuds. here's an article that explains it. Not all Porsche 911s are Universally Loved - @FlatSixes - the blog about Porsche

For many years the advice was to never buy a midyear with a 2.7 engine. Eventually people realized that any car with headstud issues was old enough to have been fixed, and if it was this old and didn't have pulled headstuds, it wasn't going to develop the problem.

Still, the midyear cars live in the shadow of their pre-impact/pre-emissions older brother, the glorious 2.4s, the pinnacle of which is the 1973 2.4S. They were slower, less beautiful and more problematic. The SC saved the 911 and the Carrera was a shot in the arm when the SC was getting a little long in the tooth. Both models we very reliable, except for an early valve wear issue that no one cares about any more. The SCs and Carreras are now valued as the final evolution of the original design.

Some people have pointed out that the mid-year cars have gotten a bad rap since the engine is basically the same as in a million dollar 2.7 RS and can be hopped up to about the same performance with relatively little effort. But the mid year stigma lives on.

It's the cost of fixing those pulled studs and building that engine that makes a 2.7 expensive. But a lot of engines have already been done by now, so there is a possibility that you can get in on a good car for a good deal.

[Evans, Marv]

I like the shape of the '65 to '73 cars. For some reason the impact bumpers and plastic Porsche piece that goes across the back of the later cars downgrade the looks for me. Another thing is a mid year car that hasn't been rebuilt is an expensive proposition. After '75, you can't mod them by upgrading the exhaust or planting another type of engine in them (at least in CA) so you are probably stuck with 175 hp. max, except for the first year or so. By '77 they were galvanized, but before that parts of the body panels were still facing a possibility for rust. I have a '77 engine for my '69, which was built a number of years ago with upgrades. I probably should have put a 3.0L or 3.2L but had the 2.7L at the time available. I think a lot of potential buyers look at them as cars with limited performance potential but still have all the needs for expensive repairs and upgrades to the drive train, bodies, interiors, suspensions, etc.

[jorian]

Impact bumpers on a narrow body was also a negative for many.

[aigel]

CIS & Smog, non-calvanized, narrow bodies, impact bumpers ...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

A lot of the reasons have been touched on but speaking as a mid-year owner they're reasonably affordable, can be easily upgraded / modified and IMHO are due for a run-up in value because at the end of the day they're still a real honest-to-goodness air-cooled, rear-engine 911.

I might pick up another... Considering it.

[sugarwood]

The 78-88 SC/3.2 cars are more expensive than the middies, and they also have impact bumpers, so it must be something else.

Based on the links, it seems like they were a lemon, and never recovered from that reputation.

If head studs are the issue with mid years, can I infer that this issue was much more prevalent in the mid years than the SC?
And more common on SC than the 3.2 ?

If a 911 has pulled head studs, what would be the main symptom[s] ?
Major loss of compression and power?

Which years have the magnesium case vs. the aluminium case?

[M.D. Holloway]

Mid year issues go away if its an ROW...

[wildthing]

It follows the usual used car price curve, 74-89 911 is like a 98-2011 Corolla.

[javadog]

This issue has been poorly understood by most car buyers. Frankly, they don't know enough about what they buy, but they learn enough of the "accepted wisdom" that they think they know more than they do.

The perceived problem with the mid-year cars has to do with engine longevity. Specifically, cars that ran too hot had problems. This is not to say all such cars ran hot, so you have to dig a little deeper.

Porsche had to deal with increasingly stringent safety, emission and noise laws that came about in the late 60's and early 70's. In addition, they added content to the cars. The cars became heavier and the engines were tuned to run on lower grades of fuel and to have more torque. The engines were increased in size in 1970, in 1972 and again in 1974. The larger they got, the more they needed auxiliary oil cooling and Porsche didn't do enough to stay ahead of that problem. Couple that with the lowered speed limits and increased city traffic, which kept the cars from being driven as they were intended, and they ran too hot, at least in the US. When they added thermal reactors to some of the engines, those ran really hot. It was the heat that caused the problems.

Not all mid-years had these issues. You can argue that the magnesium cases weren't suited for longevity with the increased displacement, but Porsche did modify and strengthen the cases along the way. ROW engines didn't ever get the thermal reactors and most were run in cooler climates, so they didn't have problems. In 1974, none of the engines in the US had thermal reactors. California cars got them first and by 1977, all US cars had them. Smart owners yanked them off and put normal exhaust systems in their place. Many owners fitted aftermarket oil coolers. So, you end up with a mixed bag of cars. Some had issues, other didn't. It was easier for clueless buyers to lump them all into one category (bad) than to actually think about individual examples.

That's not to say earlier cars were all that great. Read a road test of a pre-'74 911 and it's not unusual that the test car had some issues. Starting issues, running issues, chain tensioner failures, the problems were a lot more numerous than they should have been. Later cars have their issues, also. Not as many people talk about the bad valve springs, the bad valve guides, the bad head studs, etc. that are common on the later SC and Carerras. Do you really care if your engine has to come apart because the head studs pulled out of the case, or because the heads studs snapped? It makes little difference; the engine is in line for some serious work.

This many years down the road, every 911 will have needed some engine work along the way. If nothing else, the engines will need to be resealed, because the original sealants weren't all that great. The magnesium cases are a little problematic and you have to know what you are doing to rebuild one properly. Many have suffered at the hands of people that didn't know how to deal with them and that has just added to the poor reputation.

Purists prefer the earlier, pre-impact bumper cars because they remain truest to the original design. Arguable, the later cars can be better to drive, but the driving experience is a little different, so that remains something of personal taste.

JR

[sand_man]

A local dealer that I do business with has this '75 with 68,700 miles and priced At $97,500...I'm trying to figure out what makes this car so special:
Motorcar Investments, Inc. - (919) 851-4044, Raleigh, NC 27606

I have been meaning to stop in and chat with them. I don't get it. What am I missing?

[javadog]

Well, for one, it is a Carrera. They bring more money than a regular 911. If it was a ROW-spec Carrera, you could triple the price. Two, it has low miles. Big plus. Three, it appears to have had fewer owners than normal. Beyond that, it's all about the condition and documentation and there's not enough information in the ad to assess that.

JR

[aschen]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

The 78-88 SC/3.2 cars are more expensive than the middies, and they also have impact bumpers, so it must be something else.
?

but they dont Rust, well they arnt nearly as prone to rust, which is a huge positive

the SCs have a much more robust engine, and wernt expensive cars until recently

the 3.2 cars are significantly faster and more modern cars as well



Maybe the question should be why are earlier cars so expensive

[wayner]

Quite a few of these point have been made already, and I am including some of them here, BUT>>>

Another mid-year (1974+) issue that nobody ever talks about is something that I learned while looking into 914s.

People like 73 914s because they are pre-impact bumper, but in the 914 world, so are 1974s, so what gives? Why don't they like 1974s as well, when the giant bumpers didn't appear on 914s until 1975?

Here is the # 1 issue with 1974 up to SC Porsches including 911s:
If you look at the North American economy relative to the German economy, the Germany currency suddenly became very strong relative to the US dollar.

As such, the factory cheapened their models in 1974 in many ways.
A 914 for instance had its standard 1973 specs stripped down and turned into 1974 appearance and handling options.
More cost cutting, the 911 got smaller axle CV joints for example (a 930 kept the larger ones).

A bunch of little scrimping and saving on the standard cars.
The stronger euro currencies got better cars in many ways. A mid year euro car is just better

So, a perfect storm for the 911 in the US:
-Emissions stop gap measures made them unreliable and lowered their power
-Cheapening and de-optioning left them less appealing and less robust (look in to early transmissions versus these as well)
-Rust prevailed.

In the used market, the advise was always to buy the newest one you could afford. Aside from the special Carrera models or turbos, there wasn't much reason to go back and chose one older than an SC (SCs had bigger more robust engines, more power, more galvanization, bigger stronger parts again, and perhaps more built in options). The mid years were the budget 911s and they were all rust buckets in the long hood era.

Why are 1973 and older cars more desirable, even though they have major rust issues?
This was a relatively recent change in the market as people decided it was worth going back and getting one for the look -AND - the light weight

-Mechanically the cars up to and including 1973 were not cheapened. Each year got better and better.
-For instance more galvanization was added to the lower parts of the car by 1973, and a bigger motor by 72 so a newer long hood was just better and better by the end of their run compared to a 1969 rust bucket for example.
-The bigger engines and longer wheel bases were seen as the most desirable of the long hoods
-strong axles and new 915transmission could take more power (post 73 they later become weaker and heavier until the SC)
-They retained the "as design" "as intended" look. For a while this just made them look old, and people preferred to by SCs for all the reasons mentioned above, but after all these years, the as design" "as intended" look made them almost appear as a separate model and therefore more collectable compared to impact bumper cars.

What about the earliest short wheel base cars?
Again, this was a relatively recent thing. People go back and get these cars for the tail out driving character, but probably more so for the exclusivity of having one of the first. The short wheelbase cars turned into another sub segment that became worth collecting and paying a premium for.

All this racing backwards to get a 1973, or 1972 (maybe a 1969 if you had to settle) or ideally an early serial number short wheelbase car, or just giving in and getting a nice reliable strong and robust SC daily driver, left the mid years languishing.

In summary, advice over the years looked something like this:
Buy a short wheelbase car with the lowest serial number if you want a collectable car,
otherwise get the newest one you can afford, ideally a partially galvanized bigger engined 1972 or 1973 mechanically injected one,
but skip the mid years. They got cheaper and worse. jump ahead and look for a good SC instead, or a solid 1973.
In fact a solid 73 with an SC motor (or auto carrera 3.0 even better) was seen as the holy grail of hotrods at one time if you could not afford to build a nice lightweight magnesium 2.7 (but rather than build a 2.7 out of the original 2.4, look for a 7r magnesium case for its strength while still being incredibly light).

Then everyone started messing up these light weight cars with heavy 3.2s.
Now people crave stock 1972/73 or first year production short wheelbase, while SCs you just buy and drive.

Mid years you've got to fix, and upgrade lots of things if they haven't already been done.
Once done mid years are great cars.

Ill let experts chime in with the weakening of component changes that began in 1974.
I'll start with the smaller axle flanges
(As well as moving from mechanical to the less desirable, strangling "emissions style", fuel injection that actually started in late 1973 and carried on through SCs before finally improving again for the 3.2)